28 Jan
2009
28 Jan
'09
10:10 a.m.
? It is easy for 'when' to ignore the result of the first computation, and this would not break existing code, and also save a lot of
return ()s.
As Neil Mitchell pointed out[1], ignoring results implicitly may indicate an error. Perhaps it's cleaner to define
ignore m = m >> return ()
But isn't exactly that the behavior of (>>)? Anyway, I like the 'ignore' idea. Best, Maurício